The Journal of Critical Analysis of Judicial Decisions

The Journal of Critical Analysis of Judicial Decisions

Examining the authority to object to the execution of the document with emphasis on criticism on Supreme Court award No. 784; Not opening the knot and creating double ambiguity

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Rahim Pilvar 1
Hosein Borgi 2
1 Assistant professorr
2 judge
10.22034/analysis.2023.2007440.1031
Abstract
One of the old problems of Iranian law is the conflict of competences that exists in practice between the organization of registration of documents and real estate and the judiciary. One of these cases, which is not ambiguous in the laws, but when it comes to an execution where disputes are considered, is when a document is executed, but one of the parties or a third party objects to the execution. In short, if the objection is about the issuing the execution, this matter is under the jurisdiction of the judiciary, but if the objection is about the execution itself, it is under the jurisdiction of the head of the local registry. The Supreme Court tried to resolve a dispute regarding the third party's objection to the execution of the document, according to judicial unanimity award number 784, but the investigation showed that the award not only did not resolve dispute, but also due to ambiguity. It may have caused more differences.If the dispute arises either from the third party or from the parties, it is related to the execution stage of the document and has an executive nature (according to the regulation of executive "operations"), it is within the jurisdiction of the head of the registry, but if the dispute is about the executive itself. or the dispute is quarrel , in this case, without a doubt, the dispute should be resolved in the court.
Keywords
official document
executive document
execution of registration
jurisdiction
judicial unanimity award No. 784